The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-02-27

distilled to the very quintessence of
poignant praise. A definition of
poetry came into vogue which would
exclude Horace and the other de-
lightful workers in fancy, which
would exclude Crabbe and others.
But there is surely great deal Of lit
erature Of which one is inclined to
say, with Mercutio:
IL is not So deep as we'll, nor so
wide asa church door, but 1t is enough.
twill serve.
RICHARD III.
Itwas precisely this kind Of litera-
ture on which the new tests told
with most destructive force. But l
find myself insensibly diverging from
what L meant to say, which is that
however excellent the style of criti-
cism may be which finds infinite
deeps and marvellous revelations in
primrose, it may yet be very griev-
ously misapplied. | think it has been
VIGOROUSLY so misapplied of late years
in the case of Shakespeare, aud
especially by some of the later Ger
man critics. There has been a com
petition among them in seeing more
and deeper than anyone has ever seen
before. Shakespeare is supposed to
have written with so many conflict
ing rules OF man relation to the uni
verse as would have prevented his
writing at all. A simpler view of
the case would seem to be that he
was a playwright who, because he
happened to be great poet and
profound observer, gradually devel-
oped into the most marvellous dramat-
list that ever lived. | propose to say
a few words on one Of the plays
usually attributed to him-a play in
respect OF which | find myself in the
position of poor Peter Bell, seeing
little more than an ordinary prim-
rose where | perhaps hoped to see
plant, a flower of light. | mean the
play Richard III. Horace Wal
pole, you remember, wrote his
Historic Doubts about the character
of Richard Ill, and shall venture
my critical doubts as to the author
ship of the play which bears his
name. | have no intention OF APP
plying to it the system of criticism
which | consider as untrustworthy
as it is fascinating and which think
has already been carried beyond its
legitimate limits. All that | should
believe it absolutely safe to say of
Shakespeare is that he never wrote
deliberate nonsense, nor, was know
ingly guilty of defective meter; and
even tests like this | would apply
with commendable modesty and
hesitating reserve, conscious that
the meaning of words, aud, still
more, the associations which they
call up-and an important fact al
ways to remember in reading litera-
ture as old as Shakespeare-has
changed since his day, that the accen-
tuation of many words was variable,
and that Shakespeare's ear mightvery
likely have been as delicate as his
other senses. On the point of Shake
speares verse, | may say in passing
that his verse is often used as test
for the period of which his plays were
written. Coleridge, whose sense of
harmony and melody was perhaps
finer than that of any modern poet,
did not allow his own dramatic verse
the same license, or | might almost
say the same qualifications which he
esteems SO valuable in Interpreting
that OF Shakespeare. This is GER
taiuly remarkable. For my own part
| am eonyinced that if we had Shake
speare's plays as he wrote them and
not as they have come down to us,
deformed by the careless hurry OF
the copyists, who copied the parts as
the emendation of Incompetent ac-
tors, the = mishearing. oil shorthand
writer's, | am convinced that we
should not find demonstrably faulty
verse or a passage obscured for any
other reason than because of its
depth of thought or it's highest sub
tlety of phrase. | know that in say
ing this | am laying myself open to
the reproach OF applying common
sense to a subject which of all others
demands uncommon sense for its ade
quate treatment; demands a percep-
ton and divination almost as intalli-
BILE as the operations OF that crea-
tive mind, the attempts to measure
which are Elusive and seemingly
abnormal.
GUESSING AT AUTHORSHIP.
But in attempting to answer a
question like that | have suggested
| should be guided by considerations
far less narrow. We cannot identify
printed thoughts by the same minute
comparisons that would serve to es-
tablish the handwriting OF then. To
smell rose is surely quite other
wise convincing than to count its
petals. In guessing at the author
ship of an anonymous book like the
Doctor or Bulwer's 4ymon, for ex-
ample, while one should lay some
stress upon tricks of manner, |
should be far less influenced by the
fact that many passages were above
or below the ordinary level OF any
author whom suspected of writing
it than by the fact that there was a
single passage, however short, abso-
luiely different in kind from his
habitual tone. A man may surpass
himself or he may fall below himself,
but he never escapes from his own
nature. l would not be under
stood to mean that common sense
is always or universally applica-
BILE in criticism. Certainly com
mon sense will never suffice
for the understanding or en-
jOyment of those fine trans
lunary things that our first poets did,
as one of our first poets himself,
Drayton, said of them, but it is at
least a remarkably good precaution
against installing hand saw for a
hawk. sast.8. ,-. .--.....
STYLE OF A TEST.
What, then, is the nature of the
general considerations which | think
mo o,,oht n baor in mind in dahat-